David Webber wrote:
> Unicode has more generally recognised this problem and few (no?) fonts
> have characters defined at every code point. For the purposes of the
> user, it is sufficient to know that a given font includes Arabic, Greek,
> or Latin-Extended-A or whatever, depending on his purposes.
Unicode indeed is divided into ranges that more or less represent a
particular script, but these are not in any way considered as
constituting an 'official' support ranges for the script in question.
If you distribute a font with more or less complete support for, say,
Arabic, and someone finds it useful for his purposes, then as long as
the two parties are concerned it is an Arabic font. Particular coverage
is more of a market factor and, like you said, it's the purpose of the
user that makes any coverage useful or not.
Regards,
Grzegorz Rolek
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
